CALLO-CLARIDAD vs.
ESTEBAN
FACTS:
The petitioner is the mother of the late
Cheasare Armani "Chase" Callo Claridad
o who was found dead
o between vehicles parked at the carport
of a residential house located at No. 10
Cedar Place, Ferndale Homes, QC
Allegedly, Chase had been last seen alive with
respondent Philip Esteban
o less than an hour before the discovery
of his lifeless body
o based on the testimonies of Chase’s
sister and their house helpers
o who saw Chase hopped on the Honda
Civic of Philip
The Estebans’ were the only known user of
carport at Lot No. 10.
At that time, three cars were parked at the
carport of No. 10 Cedar place,
o A Honda CRV with plate ZAE 135
parked parallel to the Honda Civic with
plate CRD 999,
o And another Honda Civic with plate JTG
333, the car frequently used by Philip,
then parked diagonally behind the two
cars.
Some witnesses alleged that prior to the
discovery of the Chase's body, they had
noticed a male and female inside the car
bearing plate JTG 333 engaged in a discussion.
SG Abelardo Sarmiento Jr., while patrolling
around the village,
o noticed that the side of the Honda Civic
with plate JTG 333 had red streaks,
o inspected the then empty vehicle and
noticed that its radio was still turned
on
o discovered that the rear and side of the
Honda Civic with plate CRD 999 were
smeared with blood
o saw on the passenger seat a cellular
phone covered with blood
o it was then that he found the bloodied
and lifeless body of Chase lying
between the parallel cars
The body was naked from the waist up, with a
crumpled bloodied shirt on the chest, and with
only the socks on.
Petitioner filed a complaint of murder before
the OCP against Philip and his mother Teodora
Esteban. (not stated WON Teodora was
complained as principal or not)
Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) dismissed
the complaint based on the following grounds:
 there was lack of evidence, motive,
and circumstantial evidence sufficient
to charge Philip with homicide, much
less murder;
 that the circumstantial evidence could
not link Philip to the crime
 that several possibilities would discount
Philip's presence at the time of the
crime,
o including the possibility that
there were more than one
suspect in the fatal stabbing of
Chase;
 that Philip was not shown to have any
motive to kill Chase;
 that their common friends attested that
the two had no ill-feelings towards
each other;
 that no sufficient evidence existed to
charge Teodora with the crime,
o whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory;
 and that the allegation that Teodora
could have been the female person
engaged in a discussion with a male
person inside the car with plate JTG
333 was unreliable being mere
hearsay.
Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal of
the complaint.
CA also affirmed the dismissal of the
complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA committed a reversible error
in upholding the decision of the Secretary of
Justice finding that there was no probable
cause to charge Philip and Teodora with
murder for the killing of Chase.
RULING:
CA committed no reversible error.
SC upheld CA’s decision based on the following
reasons.
 1. Petitioner committed a grave mistake
when she assailed the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice by filing in the CA
a petition for review under Rule 43,
Rules of Court.
2. CA correctly concluded that the
Secretary of Justice did not abuse his
discretion in passing upon and
affirming the finding of probable cause
by the OCP.
3. Circumstantial evidences presented by
the petitioner are not enough to
warrant the indictment of respondents
for murder.
1st. Petitioner committed a grave mistake
when she assailed the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice by filing in the CA a
petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of
Court.
The filing of a petition for review under Rule 43
to review the Secretary of Justice's resolution
on the determination of probable cause was an
improper remedy.
That was a grave mistake that immediately
called for the outright dismissal of the petition.
CA had no appellate jurisdiction vis-Ã -vis the
Secretary of Justice.
A petition for review under Rule 43
 is a mode of appeal to be taken only to
review the decisions, resolutions or
awards
 by the quasi-judicial officers, agencies
or bodies,
 particularly those specified in Section 1
of Rule 43.
Secretary of Justice was not performing a
quasi-judicial function, it was performing an
executive function.
 Reviewing the OCP decisions
 Determining whether the crime alleged
against the respondents was
committed,
 and whether there was probable cause
to believe that the respondents were
guilty thereof
Courts could intervene in the Secretary of
Justice's determination of probable cause only
through
 a special civil action for certiorari
That happens when the Secretary of Justice
acts in a limited sense like a quasi-judicial
officer of the executive department exercising
powers akin to those of a court of law.
But the requirement for such intervention was
still for the petitioner to demonstrate clearly
 that the Secretary of Justice committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
Grave abuse of discretion means that
 the abuse of discretion must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law or to act at all in contemplation of
law,
 such as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility
Unless such a clear demonstration is made, the
intervention is disallowed in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers.
2nd. CA correctly concluded that the
Secretary of Justice did not abuse his
discretion in passing upon and affirming
the finding of probable cause by the OCP.
The determination of the existence of probable
cause
 lies within the discretion of the public
prosecutor
 after conducting a preliminary
investigation upon the complaint of an
offended party
A preliminary investigation, according to
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, is
 "an inquiry or proceeding to determine
whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial."
The investigation is advisedly called
preliminary
 because it is yet to be followed by the
trial proper in a court of law.
The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive
display of the parties' evidence
 but for the presentation only of such
evidence as may engender a well-
 founded belief that an offense has
been committed and that the accused
is probably guilty of the offense
The role and object of preliminary investigation
 to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious, and oppressive
prosecutions,
 and to protect him from open and
public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expenses and anxiety of a
public trial,
 and also to protect the State from
useless and expensive prosecutions
In Arula vs. Espino,the Court rendered the
three purposes of a preliminary investigation,
to wit:
 (1) to inquire concerning the
commission of a crime and the
connection of the accused with it,
o in order that he may be
informed of the nature and
character of the crime charged
against him,
o and, if there is probable cause
for believing him guilty, that
the State may take the
necessary steps to bring him to
trial;
 (2) to preserve the evidence and keep
the witnesses within the control of the
State; and
 (3) to determine the amount of bail, if
the offense is bailable.
The officer conducting the examination
investigates or inquires into facts concerning
the commission of a crime with the end in
view of determining whether an information
may be prepared against the accused.
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal
information is defined as
 such facts as are sufficient to engender
a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof
A public prosecutor alone determines the
sufficiency of evidence that establishes
the probable cause justifying the filing of a
criminal information against the respondent
 because the determination of existence
of a probable cause is the function of
the public prosecutor
It is a sound judicial policy to refrain from
interfering in the conduct of preliminary
investigations, and to just leave to the
Department of Justice the ample latitude of
discretion in the determination of what
constitutes sufficient evidence to establish
probable cause for the prosecution of supposed
offenders.
By way of exception, however, judicial review
is permitted
 where the respondent in the
preliminary investigation clearly
establishes that the public prosecutor
committed grave abuse of discretion,
 that is, when the public prosecutor has
exercised his discretion
o in an arbitrary, capricious,
whimsical or despotic manner
by reason of passion or
personal hostility,
o patent and gross enough as to
amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by
law
Thus, SC found CA's conclusion no prima facie
evidence existed that sufficiently indicated the
respondents' involvement in the commission of
the crime.
 there was no eyewitness of the actual
killing of Chase;
 or that there was no evidence showing
how Chase had been killed,
 how many persons had killed him,
 and who had been the perpetrator or
perpetrators of his killing
 nothing that directly incriminated the
respondents in the commission of
either homicide or murder
3rd. Circumstantial evidences presented by
the petitioner are not enough to warrant
the indictment of respondents for murder.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to
support a conviction, all the circumstances
must be consistent with one another and must
constitute an unbroken chain leading to one
fair and reasonable conclusion that a crime has
been committed and that the respondents are
probably guilty thereof.
The pieces of evidence must be consistent with
the hypothesis that the respondents were
probably guilty of the crime and at the same
time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they
were innocent, and with every rational
hypothesis except that of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient, therefore,
if:
 (a) there is more than one
circumstance,
 (b ) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been
proven, and
 (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
The records show that the circumstantial
evidence linking Philip to the killing of Chase
derived from the bare recollections of Ariane,
and of Guray and Corpus about seeing Chase
board the white Honda Civic at around 7:00
p.m. of February 27, 2007, and about Philip
being the driver of the Honda Civic.
But there was nothing else after that, because
the circumstances revealed by the other
witnesses could not even be regarded as
circumstantial evidence against Philip
 some of the affidavits were unsworn
 statements subscribed and sworn to
before the officers of PNP lacked the
requisite certifications
o to the effect that such
administering officers had
personally examined the
affiants,
o and that such administering
officers were satisfied that the
affiants had voluntarily
executed and understood their
affidavits
The lack of the requisite certifications from the
affidavits of most of the other
witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court.
Section 3. Procedure. — The preliminary
investigation shall be conducted in the
following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the
address of the respondent and shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses, as well
as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause. They shall be
in such number of copies as there are
respondents, plus two (2) copies for
the official file.
The affidavits shall be subscribed and
sworn to before any prosecutor or
government official authorized to
administer oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, before a notary public,
each of who must certify that he
personally examined the affiants and
that he is satisfied that they voluntarily
executed and understood their
affidavits.
The pieces of circumstantial evidence, that
were duly supported by sworn statements of
witnesses, when taken as a whole, do not,
however, lead to a finding of probable cause
that respondents committed the crime
charged.
The following are the circumstantial evidences
that were inadmissible because it is not
supported by any sworn affidavit of a witness,
1. that at around 7:45 p.m., respondent
Teodora Alyn Esteban, on board a
vehicle bearing plate no. XPN-733
entered Ferndale Homes
2. that at around the same time, two
unidentified persons, a male and
female were heard talking inside Honda
Civic bearing plate no. JTG-333
allegedly belonging to respondent
Philip, which was one of the vehicles
parked at the carport of #10 Cedar
Place, inside Ferndale Homes
3. that the Esteban family was
temporarily using the carport of #10
Cedar Place as a carpark for their
vehicles at that time
4. that when the guards went to the
house of the Esteban family, the same
was unusually dark and dim
5. that while the crime scene was being
processed, Mr. Esteban sought
assistance from the police and
requested that they escort his son,
respondent Philip Esteban, to St.
Luke's Medical Center, as the latter
also allegedly suffered injuries is
6. that during the investigation, Philip,
Mrs. Teodora Alyn Esteban and their
family refused to talk and cooperate
with the authorities and that they
neither disclosed the extent of Philip's
alleged injuries nor disclosed as to how
or why he sustained them
7. Mrs. Edith Flores, speaking for
respondents' family, reportedly
communicated with the family of the
deceased on numerous occasions and
offered to pay for the funeral expenses
The factual allegations of the complaint merely
show that
 at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening
of February 27, 2007, Marivic
 Rodriguez heard a male voice, coming
from the front of their employer's
house, shouting "Help! Help!";
 that at around 7:50 p.m., the body of
the deceased was discovered lying in a
pool of blood in the carport of #10
Cedar Place;
 that there was blood inside and outside
the white Honda Civic bearing plate no.
CRD-999;
 and, that as per Autopsy Report, the
cause of Chase's death was a stab
wound in the chest
 and that the said wound was 9
centimeters deep, or around 3.6 inches
and cut the descending aorta of his
heart.
However, all of these do not prove the
presence of respondents at the scene of the
crime nor their participation therein.

Therefore, CA committed no reversible error

when it held that the Secretary of Justice
reasonably reached the conclusion that the
dismissal by the OCP of the complaint for
murder had been based on the lack of
competent evidence to support a finding of
probable cause against the respondents.